Page images

materials produced inland to industrial plants located at the seaports or on deep water in the vicinity of these ports. Not only have these projects and developments proven of material benefit in lower transportation costs, but they have also contributed greatly to the industrial development of entire areas.

It is apparent that South Carolina now has an excellent opportunity to secure certain improvements as recommended by the Army engineers and others which will result in Columbia's becoming a port city on an inland waterway route, thus providing that city and all central and northern portions of South Carolina now served by rail lines from Columbia the benefits consisting of lower transportation costs and industrial development which other States and sections are receiving

On October 24, 1938, the Committee on Commerce of the United States Senate adopted a resolution calling upon the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors to make a comprehenive study of potential power development and water navigation projects within certain river basins in South Carolina, and to recommend for adoption a plan consisting of those projects found to be needed and which could be justified from an engineering and economic standpoint. Specifically, this resolution directed that the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors determine “the advisability of improving existing conditions for navigation on the Santee and Congaree Rivers so as to provide for navigation to Columbia, S. C., and for the development of hydroelectric power in that vicinity.” (See S. Doc. No. 189, p. 6, par. 1.)

In December 1943 the Board of Engineers completed its study and reported its findings and recommendations to the Chief of Army. Engineers. This report was studied and reviewed by the Federal Power Commission, the Chief of En. gineers, and the Secretary of War before it was submitted to the Committee on Commerce of the United States Senate and made public in 1944 as Senate Document No. 189 (78th Cong., 2d sess.)

In compliance with the resolution of October 24, 1938, the division engineer quite properly surveyed all potential projects, indicating in connection with each its value as to the amount of power capable of being generated, the extent to which it would aid navigation and compared these values with construction and operation costs. There were thus developed potential projects for consideration of the agencies authorized to conduct such a study and to make recommendations to the Committee on Commerce of the United States Senate. These potential projects consisted of “four power dams on the Broad River and one on the Santee; a dam on the Congaree at Columbia for power development and reregulation of the flow in the interest of navigation; and for dredging and the construction of contraction works between Columbia and the Santee Reservoir.” (See S. Doc. No. 189, pp. 8–9, par. 6.)

A review of Senate Document No. 189 reveals, however, that all the agencies are in agreement that several of the potential projects cannot be justified from the standpoint of present and probable future needs of the area or from an economic and engineering standpoint. These agencies, therefore, unanimously agreed and recommended for construction only those projects which represent needs for power development and navigation purposes and which are justified from an economic and engineering standpoint. These recommended projects referred to throughout Senate Document No. 189 consist of two power dams on the Broad River, one at Frost Shoals, and one at Blairs; a power and reregulating dam on the Congaree at Columbia and dredging the Congaree between Columbia and the Santee Reservoir to provide a navigation channel 150 feet wide and 8 feet deep plus 1 foot of overdepth.

The agencies making this study have, therefore, by their recommendations eliminated from consideration for construction at this time the dams at Clinchfield and Greater Lockhart on the Broad River, and Buckingham Landing Dam on the Santee River.

At this point we desire to stress the fact so forcefully pointed out in Senate Document No. 189 that the Clinchfield, Greater Lockhart, and Buckingham Landing projects are not recommended for construction, neither are they needed to provide the desired water transportation to Columbia and we know of no one who is even advocating that they be given further consideration. We also point out the fact that the Columbia Chamber of Commerce joined many other groups and individuals in the unanimous protest registered against Buckingham Landing project at a public hearing before the district engineer at Sumter, S. C., on August 28, 1945.

That there does exist a need for water transportation to Columbia and that the operation of towboats and barges over the Congaree River between Columbia and the Santee Reservoir and thence via this reservoir and the Cooper River to Charleston would prove economical and of great benefit, also, that there exists in the area a market for the power to be generated by the operation of the recommended hydroelectric plants, is clearly set forth in Senate Document No. 189, and concurrence as to these needs and in the recommended projects is found in letter from the Chief of Engineers, United States Army, dated April 13, 1944; letter from the Chairman of the Federal Power Commission dated April 11, 1944; and letter from the senior member of the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors dated December 13, 1943, which letters are made a part of Senate Document No. 189.

In view of these definite statements and positive recomendations, we urgently. seek the active cooperation and support of the South Carolina delegation in the Congress to the end that these projects, namely, the power dams at Frost Shoals and at Blairs and the Columbia reregulating dam, together with the deepening of the channel in the Congaree River, be included in the omnibus rivers and harbors bill now before the Rivers and Harbors Committee of the House. Respectfully submitted.

By HENRY F. JUMPER, President

Chairman, Water Transportation Committee.



Senator, and Chairman, Richland County Legislative Delegation.

[S, 35, 79th Cong., 1st sess.)

(In the Senate of the United States, January 10, 1945; referred to the Committee on

Commerce and ordered to be printed)

AMENDMENT Intended to be proposed by Mr. Maybank (for himself and Mr. Johnston,

of South Carolina) to the bill (S. 35) authorizing the construction, repair, and preservation of certain public works on rivers and harbors, and for other purposes, viz:

At the proper place in the bill insert the following:

"Santee and Congaree Rivers, South Carolina; the improvements designated in Senate Document Numbered 189, Seventy-eighth Congress, as the first step, and consisting of dam at the Blairs site, a dam at the Frost Shoals site, a reregulating dam at the Columbia site, and channel improvements, all in the State of South Carolina, are hereby adopted and authorized; and the sum of $25,000,000 is hereby authorized to be appropriated for the initial and partial accomplishment of such improvements: Provided, That this authorization shall not be construed as in any way adopting or approving any of the recommendations contained in such Senate document other than those specifically referred to above as being included within the first step and shall not be construed to authorize or approve any project, or the extension of any project, which will result in backing up any water at any place in the State of North Carolina”.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. I might state that you folks are very fortunate in having able representation here. You have two very able Congressmen.

Mr. MINER. We agree with you on that.

Colonel FERINGA. May I explain this item of difference to ratio costs to benefits? When the report came before the Board, which I had to look


in order to refresh my memory, there was not an item included in the district and division engineers' study for the cost of transmission lines.

At that time there was no item of law which provided that we would turn over the power to the Secretary of the Interior, so the Board found it proper to include in the cost of the project the cost of transmission lines. That, of course, increased the cost of the project and brought down the ratio of costs to benefits I think to the figure I quoted. So you are therefore faced by both Mr. Miner's statement being correct but my statement dealing with subsequent information being correct also.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. I would also like to state in partial answer to Mr. Rankin's question, Senator Maybank has also conferred with me about this project, and he is very much interested in it, and he understands the situation very well. I am sure that he will be on the alert when and if this bill ever gets over to the Senate side to cooperate in every possible way. And I am sure the other Senators will also feel that way.

That concludes all of our projects.

We have one or two little matters that Colonel Feringa wanted to bring up. We also have Mr. Warne, of the Interior Department, who has been very patiently waiting here for about a week.

Colonel FERINGA. Let Mr. Warne go ahead then.

Mr. PETERSON of Georgia. Colonel, I would like, if it is in line for Mr. Warne to make his statement now. He has been very patient and long suffering.



Mr. WARNE. Mr. Chairman, I have a prepared statement here which I will submit for the record, in the interests of conserving your time and that of the others here.

(The statement is as follows:)



Gentlemen, this committee is to be commended upon on the wise action it has taken in adopting legislation which not only permits, but prescribes, coordination between the executive departments primarily concerned with the development of water resources in the West. Section I of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1945, and the similar section in the Flood Control Act of 1944, in my mind, are two of the outstanding pieces of legislation of this kind that have been enacted for the benefit of all of the people and of all of the interests in public development.

In section I (a)

(1) The Congress declared it to be its policy "to facilitate the consideration of projects on a basis of comprehensive and coordinated development."

(2) The Congress declared it to be its policy “to recognize the interests of the States in determining the development of the watersheds within their borders and likewise their interests and rights in water utilization and control.”

(3) The Congress provided procedures to effectuate these policies in stating that “Investigations which form the basis of any such plans, proposals, or reports shall be conducted in such a manner as to give to the affected State or States, during the course of the investigations, information developed by the investigations and also opportunity for consultation regarding plans and proposals, and to the extent deemed practicable by the Chief of Engineers, opportunity to cooperate in the investigations.”

(4) The Congress provided further that "if such investigations in whole or part are concerned with the use or control of water arising west of the ninetyseventh meridian, the Chief of Engineers shall give to the Secretary of the Interior, during the course of his investigations, information developed by the investigations and also opportunity for consultation regarding plans and proposals, and to the extent deemed practicable by the Chief of Engineers, opportunity to cooperate in the investigation"; and

(5) The Congress wisely provided for an exchange of views among the States and agencies by stipulating that “the Chief of Engineers shall transmit a copy of his proposed report to each affected State, and, in case the plans or proposals covered by the report are concerned with the use of waters which rise in whole or in part west of the ninety-seventh meridian, to the Secretary of the Interior.” Within 90 days after receipt of a proposed report, the written views and recommendations of each affected State, and the Secretary of the Interiør, may be submitted to the Chief of Engineers, who shall transmit them to the Congress with his proposed report, accompanied by such comments and recommendations as he deems appropriate.

If pursued on the basis of wholehearted cooperation among the States and Federal agencies, these policies and procedures can do a great deal to bring about the best possible development of our resources. The Interior Department subscribes fully to the application of these laws. In order that these policies may be continued in effect without question, the Commissioner of Reclamation has already recommended to the Flood Control Committee of the House of Representatives that that committee, your distinguished Rivers and Harbors Committee, and the appropriate committee in the Senate, delete from the fourth line of the preamble to section I (a), the words “as herein authorized.” By this deletion, the Congress will assure the continuing effectiveness of these valuable provisions. I am pleased to present this recommendation to your committee in behalf of the Department of the Interior and the Commissioner of Reclamation.

In addition, the Congress in section I (b) of the same act declared it to be its policy that “The use for navigation, in connection with the operation and maintenance of such works herein authorized for construction, of waters arising in the States lying wholly or partly west of the ninety-eighth meridian shall be only such úse as does not conflict with any beneficial consumptive use, present or future, in States lying wholly or partly west of the ninety-eighth meridian, of such waters for domestic, municipal, stock water, irrigation, mining, or industrial purposes.” This section of the laws like section I (a), represents a policy which is vital to the interests of all of the States and of all of the people in the West, and to the entire Nation. I feel sure that it was the understanding of almost everyone that in adopting section I (b) the Congress had given the executive agencies and the States a permanent and far reaching policy of major importance. Close examination of section I (b) discloses, however, that this section may only have applied literally to works authorized for construction in the 1944 Flood Control Act and the 1945 Rivers and Harbors Act. In the interest of the best development of the West, I urge most strongly your committee, and the Flood Control Committee, take action to amend section I (b) by inserting, after the word "herein” in the second line, the words “or hereafter" so that this fundamental provision of both acts will have continuing value to the Nation.

Section I (c) of each of these acts provides, and correctly, that “The Secretary of the Interior, in making investigations of and reports on works for irrigation and purposes incidental thereto shall, in relation to the affected State or States, and to the Secretary of War, be subject to the same provisions regarding investigations, plans, proposals, and reports prescribed in paragraph (a) for the Chief of Engineers and the Secretary of War.” The Department of the Interior subscribes fully to this policy.

You can well appreciate that the enunciation of policies so fundamental to cooperation as these would not produce immediate and uniform results. These policies necessitated a considerable change in relationships among the executive agencies, and in some cases with the States. It is to be expected that there would be better application of these policies in some areas than in others. I would be foolish indeed if I were to endeavor to convince you that the enunciation of these principles alone would be sufficient to achieve all of the desired results. We, in the Department of the Interior, believe firmly in the objectives of the law, and we are striving diligently to put these congressional policies into effect. I am happy to report that in many areas, and to an increasing degree, effective cooperation is developing among the executive agencies and the States. A high degree of technical coordination has taken place in the Pacific Northwest, and in the Central Valley of California. Coordination on technical matters is progressing in the Missouri Basin, and on the Red River above the Denison Dam it is quite satisfactory. Evidences of the desire of the executive agencies to work in harmony and in full cooperation with the States are numerous. It has always been the policy for the Department of the Interior to work on this basis, for, as you are aware, a large proportion of the costs of our projects are reimbursable by the local interests. It is therefore not only important, but essential, that we work in very close collaboration with the local interests, as well as with the Federal agencies.

One of the forward steps that has been taken has been the establishment of the Federal Interagency River Basin Committee, composed of representatives of the Department of the Interior, the Corps of Engineers, the Federal Power Commission, and the Department of Agriculture. To date, this committee has created two field working committees, one known as the Missouri Basin Interagency Committee, and the other as the Columbia Basin Interagency Committee. The same agencies are represented on these field committees as are represented on the Federal committee, and State representatives participate directly in their work. Through the activities of these committees, we hope to achieve a greater degree of cooperation while project plans are in their formulative stage.

Following the clearly expressed desire of Congress in the 1944 and 1945 acts, I want to point out that, in connection with the projects on which you have recently been hearing testimony, the Department of the Interior has had an opportunity to consider whether the full natural-resource development will be obtained. This has been no small task, as the Congress has vested the Department of the Interior with large responsibilities not only for irrigation and power development, but for preservation and conservation of fish and wildlife, recreation, grazing lands, supervision of Indian affairs, development of mineral resources, and similar activities related to resource development.

I am happy to report to you that the Department of the Interior has found that the able Army engineers' proposal will in no way interfere with the responsibilities charged to the Interior Department in an overwhelming majority of projects which we have had opportunity to study. It was only on a comparatively small group of projects out of those we have seen that we felt warranted in offering specific suggestions to accomplish still further multiple-purpose benefits and integrated resource development.

In those cases, the comments are not gratuitous gestures, they are firm recommendations based upon a knowledge of the facts, whether favorable to the project as proposed, or whether they recommend additional works or another point of view. All of the activities of the Department of the Interior are directed toward the development or conservation of our natural resources. Hence our suggestions, in each case where we have made suggestions, have been made with a view to the best interests of the region to be served by the project.

We also measure ourselves by the same yardsticks. The Bureau of Reclamation has not placed before the Congress any water-control or development project without first having had it reviewed fully by other Federal or State agencies who have a responsibility, be it agricultural, flood control, nevigation, or power. We have been conscientious in following the broad policies, and the spirit of the acts laid down by the Congress. We did this not only because we felt obligated to adhere to the wise policy enunciated by this committee heretofore, but because the Department of the Interior is convi ed that there must be full, integrated, and coordinated development of all resources without foreclosing any opportunities, if the full benefits which may be obtained from water-control projects are actually to be realized in the public interest.

It is genuinely unfortunate that there have been areas, such as those in the Foster Creek Dam in Washington, or the Red River below Fulton, which have been brought to your attention during your consideration of testimony on the individual projects and where the coordination of plans has not been fruitfully effective during their formative period. There are areas, where, because of the differences in the basic laws under which the various Federal agencies work, we have achieved coordination only on the physical features of the works involved, but have not achieved full coordination on equally important factors, such as the policies dealing with the manner or purposes of project operation, and such questions as repayment by project beneficiaries.

On the whole, gentlemen, I think that the Congress and the executive agencies can be gratified with the beneficial effects of these congressional policies, and I can assure you that the Department of the Interior will do its utmost to fulfill the objectives of the laws laid down by the Congress. We in the Department of the Interior recognize that coordination, like collaboration, is something that does not just happen, we must work at it.

I urge, therefore, that the amendments I have recommended be enacted. They provide for the continuation of the splendid principles set forth in sections I (a) and I (b).

« PreviousContinue »